[rooster]

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?

Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.

[Vindictus]

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.

All of Jackson's movies are mostly fan fiction. Making a good movie out of the books is near impossible.

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I really disliked it. I enjoyed the first one more if just for the character development. The second seemed cheap and shallow. I thought the river barrel scene was ridiculous. And the audience I was in kept laughing during really inappropriate times simply because the whole movie had a goofy "don't take me seriously" vibe. Like when Bilbo says "mine" for the first time when grabbing the ring... How is that funny?

Kili/Tauriel, Smaug, and Gandalf using magic were the only decent parts in a way too drawn out movie.

Uh, there's more characters in the second and the dwarves don't receive any more development than they did in the first. The only thing I agree with here is that it went too long, 2 hours 40 minutes is too long for this movie. And your audience is retarded.

[rooster]

Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

[beardo]

I'm glad I don't give a fuck about these films.

[Vindictus]

Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

More characters were developed.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

Have you seen the first movie?

[rooster]

Yes, there are more characters but that doesn't have anything to do with character development. And it certainly seems like Thorin and Bilbo are not as prevalent as they were in the first movie.

We probably get to know Tauriel the best, but she's not even in the books.

More characters were developed.

The audience was stupid but so was the over the top goofy-comedy of the movie.

Have you seen the first movie?

Having more characters does not equal character development. Like I already said it was extremely shallow and each character had basically one emotion throughout the whole movie.

The first one had its comic relief as well. It's something I generally dislike about the movies. But it didn't have a 30 min barrel ride of a bouncy fat dwarf.

[beardo]

Omg racist

[Snupes]

I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.

[Lemon]

Ah people that examine movies. If you sat down and enjoyed it, it's good. No need to examine everything.

[rooster]

I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.

It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

[Lemon]

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

Aye, carry on.

[spoon]

Just watched A Clockwork Orange.

Very Kubrickious. Loved the score. Even the synthesized bits were Bach. The old guy in the wheelchair reminded me of Hector Salamanca from Breaking Bad when he got angry. Overall, I'd give it an 8.4/10. I received the movie as a Christmas gift. It came with The Shining and 2001. I'll rewatch both of those soon.

[Vindictus]

I dunno, as far as I can recall the book was pretty goofy too. That's one of the things I was hoping Jackson would make sure to do with the films, rather than making it broody mcbroodwalking like the LotR. That said, I do think the goofiness was over the top, as you say, but I definitely don't think the goofy atmosphere is a flaw or a bad thing. I liked the whole barrel section, it was one of the less boring parts of the film. I remember finding that part funny in the book, though I might be crazy, so I'm glad it was equally as silly in the film. I loved Bilbo's moment of realization after he pushed them all off into the river.

It's true that the book is geared more towards kids. (Or at least it's the one we were forced to read in middle school.) But I was hoping for the broody mcbroodwalking.

And Lemon, I didn't enjoy it so I was explaining why.

The Hobbit is a kids book so the movie is for kids. Treating the retaking of Erebor the same as the war of the ring would be foolish, one is a simple adventure and the other concerns the fate of the world. Jackson has also shoe horned in Sauron and some very brief "my precious" forshadowing, so calling the movie overly goofy is odd.

In the first movie, you had barely any character development. Bilbo and Thorin had their arch, and that was about it as everyone else was either already established or received very little screen time (the dwarves).

The second movie established Beorn, the elves, laketown (bard and the mayor), and Smaug while giving some more development to a few of the dwarves. There wasn't really an arch, but the movie was already packed with subplots anyway.

[rooster]

And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.

The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.

But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.

[Vindictus]

And all of these character "establishments" were really shallow. You're not going to convince me otherwise. The movie focused on CGI sequences and a love story which never existed in the book.

So basically it's the first movie

The ring foreshadowing was still done with quirkiness, which is why my dumb audience laughed at it. It was overly goofy.

But you're right that the movie is for kids and I just can't get into it.

lol, how was it quirky? No one in my theatre laughed. SPOILERS:

Bilbo killed a baby spider standing on the ring, then picked the ring up and whispered "MY precious" or some such. Nothing about that scene was funny, if anything it was a bit sad and depraved (which I felt was what Jackson was going for). Your audience was retarted.

[spoon]

I watched Kingdom of Heaven today.

Overall, it's a 7.5/10. It seems Ridley Scott was reminiscing on Gladiator with this one, at least in the battle sequences. The fights were absolutely phenomenal. I like how he uses blood. Orlando Bloom did fairly well, but his pathetic excuse for facial hair made him seem a delicate flower next to some of the beards he fought against. There were some excellent shots, about 3 or 4 in particular where I immediately reviewed them after they happened.

My only complaint was that I felt like I was watching the movie from battle to battle. The between segments were nice, but the action was what made the movie for me.

[markjo]

The Hobbit 2 was a considerable improvement over the first, mostly because it jumps straight into the story instead of spending 40 minutes sitting around. The action scenes, especially the barrel scene, were fantastic, and the dragon was some damn fine CGI. It did drag for some bits (although I barely noticed) and the Tauriel love triangle was a bit grating, but overall it was pretty good. I'm not sure whether I liked how they ended it, but I definitely want to see the next one.

I heard it was mostly fanfiction that had nothing to do with the book.

Originally it was supposed to be 2 movies, but when it got expanded to 3, they wound up drawing from other Tolkien books to act as filler.

[Roundy]

It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

[Vindictus]

It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

[Roundy]

It should have been one movie, but they recognized the opportunity to sucker loads of fanboys who can't wait to spend their money on anything LOTR, and stretched it out to the point where it's just ridiculous.  I mean, seriously.  It was a simple, short book with some entertaining vignettes and a spectacular climactic battle.  They could have done it so easily in one movie and it could have been great.

So much of the first movie was filler.  I imagine this one is the same. I mean stretching 300 pages into 8 hours.  Give me a fucking break.

I don't see how they could turn it into a single movie. 2 movies maybe, but not 1. Too much crap happens, you would have to jump directly from event to event in order to fit it all in, leaving no time for anything else.

I'd prefer 3 bloated movies to 1 awful one.

So I imagine you must have really hated the original LOTR trilogy since they crammed so much into a single trilogy.  I mean, given that it's five fucking times as long as The Hobbit in print but about the same length on screen.